1411 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

tel (202) 736-2200 fax (202) 736-2222

www.campaignlegalcenter.org

Campaign Legal Center Litigation Summary

May 2015

1. U.S. SUPREME COURT

a. Active cases

b. Past cases/orders

2. CASES CHALLENGING FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS/REGULATIONS

3. CASES CHALLENGING STATE/MUNICIPAL LAWS

1. U.S. SUPREME COURT

a. Active cases

Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, No. 13-1499 (U.S.)

Case Description: This case involves a challenge by Lanell Williams-Yulee, a state judicial candidate,

who was disciplined by the Florida Bar after she sent a mass-mail letter in 2009 soliciting campaign

contributions. She filed suit to challenge the Florida canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates

in judicial elections from directly soliciting campaign contributions, alleging that the rule

unconstitutionally infringed on her free speech rights. The Florida Supreme Court rejected her

argument, finding that the solicitation prohibition protects Florida’s interest in the actuality and

appearance of an impartial judiciary.

Case Status: The Supreme Court upheld the solicitation restriction in a 5-4 decision on April 29, 2015,

holding that the law was narrowly tailored to advance the government’s compelling interest in

“preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary.”

CLC Position/Involvement: On December 23, 2014, the CLC joined with the Brennan Center, Justice

at Stake, Demos, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Common Cause, and the Center for

Media and Democracy to file an amici brief to defend Florida’s judicial canon.

a. Past cases/orders

McCutcheon v. FEC, 12-cv-01034-JEB-JRB-RLW (D.D.C.) (three-judge court), No. 12-536 (U.S.)

Case Description: The Republican National Committee (RNC) and donor Shaun McCutcheon

brought suit on June 22, 2012 to challenge the $74,600 aggregate limit on contributions to non-

2

candidate committees and the $48,600 aggregate limit on contributions to candidate committees in a

two-year election cycle.1

Case Status: On September 28, 2012, a three-judge district court dismissed the case, finding that the

aggregate limits prevented circumvention of the base contribution limits. On April 2, 2014, the

Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits, holding that they did not meaningfully prevent

circumvention or otherwise prevent quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed an amici brief with the Supreme Court on July 25, 2013,

on behalf of numerous citizen, civil rights and watchdog groups. The Legal Center also coordinated

the amici effort in defense of the law. The CLC and Democracy 21 previously filed an amici brief in

support of the FEC on July 10, 2012 with the three-judge district court.

2. CASES CHALLENGING FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS/REGULATIONS

Libertarian National Committee (LNC) v. FEC, 11-cv-00562 (D.D.C.), on appeal Nos. 13-5088, 13-

5094 (D.C. Cir.)

Case Description: In March 2011, the LNC filed suit to challenge the federal contribution limits as

applied to bequests from decedents to political parties, specifically a $217,734 bequest from

Raymond Groves Burrington to the LNC. The LNC argued that the FEC’s requirement that it accept

this bequest in annual increments of $30,800 as per the contribution limits, instead of in one lump

sum, infringed on its First Amendment rights. On May 4, 2012, the LNC moved the court to certify

constitutional questions to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437(h).

On September 28, 2012, the district court declined to certify the constitutional questions as

formulated by plaintiff and granted summary judgment to the FEC, finding that a facial challenge to

the contribution limits was precluded by Supreme Court precedent. The court, however, amended the

constitutional question and certified the following, “Does imposing annual contribution limits against

the bequest . . . violate the First Amendment rights of the Libertarian National Committee?”

Case Status: On February 3, 2014, the FEC filed to argue that the case was moot, because

disbursements had depleted the bequest to the LNC to only $7,534, and thus the applicable

contribution limit ($32,400) in no way prevented the balance from being received in its entirety by the

LNC. On March 26, 2014, the en banc court dismissed the case as moot.

CLC Involvement: The CLC tracked this case.

Independence Institute v. FEC, No. 1:14-cv-01500 (D.D.C), on appeal No. 14-5249 (D.C. Cir.)

Case Description: On September 2, 2014, the Independence Institute filed suit to challenge the federal

electioneering communications disclosure provisions enacted by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

(BCRA). Plaintiff sought to run broadcast ads referring to Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) shortly before

Election Day without disclosing its donors. The challenged law requires such disclosure when groups

spend more than $10,000 on “electioneering communications”—defined as any television or radio ad

that mentions the name of a federal candidate within 60 days of a general or 30 days of a primary

election.

Case Status: On October 6, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the

1 The amounts listed were the aggregate limits applicable in the 2013-2014 election cycle.

3

challenge. On October 8, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The FEC moved for summary

affirmance on November 25, 2014, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion on

February 20, 2015. The parties are currently briefing the merits.

CLC Position/Involvement: On May 15, 2015, the CLC, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen,

filed an amici brief with the Court of Appeals urging the Court to affirm the district court decision. On

September 19, 2014, the CLC, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen filed an amici brief in the district

court.

New York Republican State Committee v. SEC, No. 1:14-cv-01345 (D.D.C.), on appeal No. 14-5242

Case Description: The state Republican parties of New York and Tennessee challenged an SEC rule

barring investment firms from managing state assets for two years after a firm or its associates make

more than de minimis contributions to officeholders or candidates who have or would have power to

award investment contracts. The rule was implemented after SEC and state investigations uncovered

extensive evidence of fraud in the award of state investment contracts.

Case Status: On September 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed

the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 6, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district

court’s decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeal

with the plaintiffs’ new petition (No. 14-1194) on November 12, 2014. Oral argument was heard

March 23, 2015.

CLC Position/Involvement: On August 29, 2014, the CLC, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici

brief with the district court in defense of the SEC rule, and on January 28, 2015, filed an amici brief

with the Court of Appeals.

Public Citizen v. FEC, No. 1:14-cv-00148 (D.D.C.)

Case Description: On January 31, 2014, Public Citizen filed suit in federal court challenging the

FEC’s failure to investigate whether Crossroads GPS meets the federal definition of a “political

committee.” In 2010, the plaintiffs had filed an administrative complaint with the FEC alleging that

Crossroads GPS had violated federal campaign finance law by failing to register and report as a

political committee during the 2010 elections. Although the FEC’s Office of the General Counsel

recommended an investigation of whether Crossroads GPS had violated the law, the FEC deadlocked

3-3 in December 2013 on whether to investigate and consequently, dismissed the administrative

complaint.

Public Citizen filed its motion for summary judgment on July 30, 2014, and its reply brief on October

22, 2014.

Case Status: Crossroad GPS moved for leave to intervene in the case, which the district court denied

on August 11, 2014. Crossroads GPS appealed the ruling, and the district court proceedings have

been stayed pending resolution of the appeal.

CLC Position/Involvement: Attorneys at the CLC and Public Citizen are representing the plaintiffs

in this action.

4

Republican National Committee v. FEC, No. 1:14-cv-0053 (D.D.C.), on appeal No. 14-5241 (D.C.

Cir.)

Case Description: On May 23, 2014, a group of Republican party committees sued the FEC in the

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the BCRA

provisions prohibiting national party committees from raising money outside of the federal limits and

source restrictions to finance independent expenditures. The committees argued that they had a First

Amendment right to solicit and receive unlimited contributions to a separate account devoted to

independent expenditures, i.e., a party “Super PAC.”

This case was consolidated with a similar challenge to the BCRA soft money limits brought by

committees of the Libertarian Party (Rufer v. FEC, 1:14-cv-00837 (D.D.C.), on appeal 14-5240

(D.C. Cir.)).

Case Status: On September 22, 2014, the district court submitted constitutional questions for

certification to the en banc D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 19, 2014, the Republican

plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the proceedings before the D.C. Circuit; the Libertarian plaintiffs

voluntarily dismissed their challenge on December 2, 2014.

CLC Involvement: The CLC tracked this case.

Van Hollen v. FEC, No. 11-cv-00766 (D.D.C.), Nos. 15-5016, 5017 (D.C. Cir.)

Case Description: On April 21, 2011, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) sued the FEC in the

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that a 2007 regulation improperly narrowed

the scope of federal disclosure requirements connected to electioneering communications.2 Plaintiff

challenged the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that it is arbitrary,

capricious and contrary to the federal campaign finance statute it purports to implement.

On March 30, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Van Hollen, finding that

the regulation was beyond the scope of the FEC’s authority and failed a Chevron step one analysis.

Two non-profit groups intervening in the case appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of

Appeals.

On September 18, 2012, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court, but it remanded the case

back to the district court for consideration of plaintiff’s Chevron step two argument.

Case Status: On November 25, 2014, the district court held that the rule improperly narrowed the

scope of the statute’s disclosure requirements under Chevron step two. Defendant-intervenors have

again appealed. Van Hollen’s opening brief was filed on May 11, 2015.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC and Democracy 21 are part of Van Hollen’s pro bono legal

team, led by attorneys of the law firm WilmerHale.

2 In addition to the lawsuit, Van Hollen also filed a petition at the FEC requesting an expedited

rulemaking to revise and amend an existing FEC “independent expenditure” disclosure regulation.

5

Wagner v. FEC, No. 11-cv-1841 (D.D.C.), on appeal No. 12-5365 (D.C. Cir.)

Case Description: On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government contractor

contribution ban as applied to individuals who have personal services contracts with federal agencies.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and motion for preliminary injunction on January 31, 2012.

On April 16, 2012, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and on November

5, 2012, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the FEC. Plaintiffs appealed to the D.C.

Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 31, 2013, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the

judgment below on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the lower court should have certified

constitutional questions to the en banc Court of Appeals instead of rendering a decision on the merits.

The panel remanded the case to the district court.

Case Status: On June 5, 2013, the district court certified two questions to the en banc Court of

Appeals relating to: (1) whether the contractor contribution ban as applied to individuals such as

plaintiffs violates principles of equal protection; and (2) whether the ban violates the First

Amendment. The en banc Court of Appeals heard oral argument on September 30, 2014.

CLC Position/Involvement: On February 27, 2013, the CLC, joined by Democracy 21 and Public

Citizen, filed an amici brief with a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in support

of the contractor contribution ban, and on August 9, 2013, these amici filed a brief with the en banc

Court of Appeals. Previously, on August 23, 2012, the CLC filed an amici brief with the district

court.

3. CASES CHALLENGING STATE/MUNICIPAL LAWS

Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates v. Barland, No. 2:14-cv-01222 (E.D. Wisc.)

Case Description: On October 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin to challenge Wisconsin’s statutory provisions and regulations

governing spending by outside groups coordinated with candidates. Plaintiffs sought to make

communications in coordination with three candidates for Wisconsin office, and argued that if they

did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of these candidates, they should be free to coordinate

such communications with the candidates without limitation.

Case Status: On October 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to

enjoin the state’s coordination laws and regulations. Before defendants filed a response, the court

entered a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the law. The Court thereafter allowed

briefing by the parties, and heard oral argument October 30. On November 6, 2014, the Court entered

the parties’ stipulated preliminary injunction and stayed further proceedings on the merits pending

determination by the state Supreme Court regarding the correct interpretation of state campaign

finance law.

CLC Position/Involvement: On October 29, 2014, the CLC filed an amicus brief urging the court to

reject plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, noting that the Supreme Court rejected an

argument similar to plaintiffs’ in McConnell v. FEC.

6

Colorado Republican Party v. Gessler, 2014-CV-31851 (Denver D. Ct.), on appeal 2014-CV-031851

(Colo. Ct. Appeals)

Case Description: The Colorado Republican party filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment allowing

it to establish an “independent expenditure committee” that could operate outside the otherwise

applicable state limits for contributions to political parties. On September 30, 2014, the district court

granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, allowing the creation of such a party committee.

Case Status: Defendant-intervenor Colorado Ethics Watch filed a notice of appeal on October 6,

2014. The parties are currently briefing the appeal.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed an amicus brief with the Colorado Court of Appeals on

March 6, 2015, urging reversal of the district court.

Delaware Strong Families (DSF) v. Biden, 1:13-cv-1746-SLR (D. Del.), on appeal No. 14-1887 (3rd

Cir.)

Case Description: On October 23, 2013, plaintiff DSF filed suit to challenge the Delaware Elections

Disclosure Act, in particular its “electioneering communications” provisions, which require

disclosure in connection to any communication distributed 30 days before a primary election or 60

days before a general election by “television, radio, newspaper or other periodical, sign, Internet, mail

or telephone.” DSF argues this law is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to its voter

guide regarding “family issues.”

Case Status: On January 14, 2014, plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction. The court entered a

preliminary injunction against the defendants on April 8, 2014.

The State of Delaware filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on

April 10, 2014, and filed its brief on the appeal on June 2, 2014. The Third Circuit heard oral

argument on October 28, 2014.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC, along with attorneys from the law firm WilmerHale,

represents the Delaware Attorney General.

Dickranian v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:12-cv-05145-ODW-SS (C.D. Cal.), on appeal No. 12-56844

(9th Cir.)

Case Description: On June 13, 2013, plaintiff Laurel Dickranian filed suit in U.S. District Court for

the Central District of California challenging Los Angeles disclaimer and disclosure requirements as

unconstitutional. Dickranian spent nearly $8,000 sending letters to more than 17,000 Los Angeles

voters urging them to elect a particular candidate for the office of City Attorney. The City’s law

requires those making independent expenditures in city candidate or ballot measure elections to file a

campaign finance report and a copy of the communication. The district court summarily dismissed

Dickranian’s complaint and upheld the City’s disclosure law.

Case Status: Dickranian appealed the district court’s dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On November 7, 2014, the parties notified the Ninth Circuit that they had settled the case.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed an amicus brief in support of the City’s law with the

Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2013.

7

Galassini v. Town of Fountain Hills, 2:11-cv-02097-JAT (D. Ariz.), on appeal 14-17541 (9th Cir.)

Case Description: In 2011, plaintiff Dina Galassini organized friends to protest a new bond

measure. After the town clerk informed her that the activity might require her to register as a “political

committee,” Galassini challenged Arizona’s definition of “political committee” as unconstitutionally

vague and overbroad, and argued that the statute’s imposition of registration and reporting

requirements on groups raising and spending more than $500 to influence ballot initiatives is

unconstitutional. On September 30, 2013, the district court granted partial summary judgment to the

plaintiffs, finding that Arizona’s definition of “political committee” is unconstitutionally vague and

overbroad on its face.

Following its ruling of September 30, the district court called for briefing on whether to enjoin the

state campaign finance statutes “to the extent those statutes depend on the definition of political

committee.” The State of Arizona, as intervenor-defendant, submitted a supplemental brief on

October 17, 2013 stressing the inappropriateness of injunctive relief and urging the court to at least

clarify the terms of such relief. On December 5, 2014, however, the court affirmed the declaratory

relief in its early ruling, holding that “the definition of “political committee” in A.R.S. § 16-901(19) is

vague, overbroad, and consequently unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment.”

Case Status: The intervenor-defendant State of Arizona filed a notice of appeal on December 24,

2015. The state’s opening brief is due June 1, 2015.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC has been tracking this case.

Greenbaum a/k/a Giant Cab Co. v. Bailey, No. 13-cv-00426-MCA/ACT (D.N.M.), on appeal No. 13-

2176 (10th Cir.)

Case Description: On May 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging an Albuquerque city

ordinance prohibiting corporations, partnerships or other business entities from making contributions

to candidates for city office. Plaintiffs also allege that the City’s law impermissibly distinguishes

among speakers, violating their rights of free speech and equal protection under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments.

On September 4, 2013, the district court struck down Albuquerque’s ordinance. Although the court

acknowledged that such bans are constitutional as a general matter, it held that the City Council had

failed to develop an adequate record demonstrating that corporate campaign contributions would lead

to a perception of corruption among Albuquerque voters or that they would be employed as a means

of circumventing individual contribution limits.

Case Status: The decision was appealed by The Committee to Elect Pete Dinelli Mayor as

intervenor-defendant. On March 31, 2015, The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal

on standing grounds, finding that the Committee had no personal stake in the litigation.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC has been tracking this case.

Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) v. Ferguson, No. 14-2-00027-5 (Thurston Cnty. Super.

Ct., Wash.), consolidated with State v. GMA, No. 13-2-02156-8

Case Description: In October 2013, the Washington Attorney General’s Office filed suit in Thurston

County Superior Court against the GMA, alleging that it had violated Washington campaign

8

disclosure laws by spending more than $7 million to oppose an unsuccessful state ballot measure,

Initiative 522, without disclosing the true source of the contributions. Initiative 522 would have

required labeling of genetically engineered foods in Washington.

On January 3, 2014, the GMA filed a countersuit challenging the constitutionality of Washington’s

disclosure laws. Specifically, the GMA alleges that Washington’s definition of “political committee”

and associated reporting requirements for committees are unconstitutional as applied to GMA. GMA

also argued that a requirement that committees collect $10 from 10 registered Washington voters

before making PAC-to-PAC transfers is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to ballot

initiative committees.

Case Status: A motion to consolidate the enforcement action with GMA’s complaint was granted on

January 31, 2014. On June 13, 2014, the superior court invalidated the requirement that GMA collect

$10 in contributions from 10 registered Washington voters before donating to a separate political

committee. However, the court rejected GMA’s request to dismiss the entire enforcement action on

constitutional grounds, ruling that the state’s political committee definition and associated disclosure

requirements were constitutionally applied and allowing the case to continue to trial.

CLC Position/ Involvement: The CLC has been tracking this case.

Hispanic Leadership Fund and Freedom New York v. Walsh, No. 1:12-cv-1337 (N.D.N.Y.)

Case Description: The plaintiffs challenged New York’s $5,000 limit on corporate contributions and

its $150,000 annual aggregate limit on contributions from individuals, as applied to contributions to

committees making only independent expenditures. In addition, plaintiffs challenged New York’s

political committee disclosure law, claiming that the law requires groups making independent

expenditures to “promote the success or defeat of a political party or principle” to register and report

as a committee regardless of such group’s major purpose.

Case Status: On October 23, 2012, the district court denied HLF’s motion for an injunction to block

the state’s campaign finance rules, but relied heavily on an analysis of the “balance of the equities,”

instead of an assessment of plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits.

On August 28, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoined

enforcement of the contribution limits as applied to independent expenditure committees. Defendants

filed multiple appeals, but voluntarily dismissed all appeals. On December 2, 2014, the parties settled

under the terms of the court’s summary judgment decision.

CLC Position/ Involvement: The CLC tracked this case.

Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan, No. 12-cv-05811 (N.D. Ill.), on appeal No. 12-3305 (7th Cir.)

Case Description: Illinois Liberty PAC (ILP) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois to challenge the constitutionality of Illinois’s state contribution limits, specifically,

the $50,000 limit on contributions from PACs to state candidates and the $5,000 limit on

contributions from individuals to candidates. ILP argued that the law authorizes political parties to

make far larger contributions and therefore discriminates against non-party political speakers in favor

of political parties. On October 5, 2012, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary relief,

allowing the contribution limits to stand. ILP appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit, which

summarily affirmed the district court’s ruling on November 15, 2012.

9

Case Status: On May 10, 2013, ILP filed their second amended complaint in the district court,

adding an additional plaintiff and an additional argument to support the claim that Illinois’

contribution limits impermissibly favor non-party speakers. Specifically, ILP argued that the limits

are unconstitutional insofar as they classify “legislative caucus committees” as political party

committees, thereby treating them more favorably than PACs, individuals and corporations.

On August 9, 2013, the state filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted the state’s motion in part on

March 3, 2014, dismissing ILP’s challenge with prejudice as to the First Amendment and Equal

Protection claims already considered at the preliminary injunction stage. However, although noting

that it “strongly suspects that legislative caucus committees are sufficiently similar to political party

committees for purposes of constitutional analysis,” the court denied the motion with respect to the

Act’s treatment of legislative caucus committees given the incomplete record on that question. Cross-

motions for summary judgment on the outstanding claims were filed in December 2014.

CLC Position/Involvement: On September 18, 2012, the CLC filed an amici brief with the district

court, defending the state contribution limits. The CLC also filed a brief opposing an injunction

pending appeal with the Seventh Circuit on October 18, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the CLC filed

another amici brief in the district court supporting Illinois’s motion to dismiss.

Independence Institute v. Williams (f/k/a Independence Institute v. Gessler), No. 1:14-cv-02426 (D.

Colo.), on appeal No. 14-1463 (10th Cir.)

Case Description: Independence Institute challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s

electioneering communication disclosure provisions, as applied to an ad it proposed to run on

broadcast television referring to Governor John Hickenlooper shortly before Election Day. The

challenged law requires donor disclosure when groups spend more than $1,000 on “electioneering

communications”—defined as certain television, radio and print ads that mention the name of a state

candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. Although plaintiff’s

ad constituted an electioneering communication under Colorado law, plaintiff argued that it did not

constitute express advocacy or its functional equivalent, and thus could not be constitutionally subject

to disclosure.

Case Status: On October 22, 2014, the district court dismissed the challenge to Colorado’s disclosure

provisions. On November 5, 2014, plaintiffs appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The

plaintiffs’ brief on appeal was filed January 7, 2015, and the state’s brief was filed February 25, 2015.

CLC Position/Involvement: On March 4, 2015, the CLC, joined by Democracy 21 and Public

Citizen, filed an amici brief with Tenth Circuit, urging the Court of Appeals to affirm the district

court order dismissing the case. On September 25, 2014, the CLC filed an amici brief with the

district court to defend the Colorado law.

Justice v. Hosemann, No. 3:11-cv-138-SA-SAA (N.D. Miss.), on appeal No. 13-60754 (5th Cir.)

Case Description: Plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of Mississippi’s campaign

finance disclosure requirements as they apply to small groups and individuals intending to support or

oppose state constitutional ballot measures. On September 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi held that Mississippi’s requirement that groups register as political

committees upon receiving or spending in excess of $200 to support or oppose a ballot initiative is

unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs. The court applied exacting scrutiny, and found that the

government had a legitimate informational interest in ballot initiative-related disclosure, but

10

invalidated the law on grounds that it was not sufficiently tailored given the very low reporting

threshold.

Case Status: The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 14, 2015, the

Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. Applying exacting scrutiny, the appellate court

found that the state’s disclosure requirements were substantially related to the state’s informational

interest. On November 26, 2014, plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition for rehearing en banc. The state

defendants-appellants filed their opposition to the petition on December 22, 2014.

CLC Position/Involvement: On March 3, 2014, the CLC filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit

defending Mississippi’s campaign finance disclosure laws, and on August 28, 2014, filed a

supplemental letter brief addressing an intervening Fifth Circuit decision.

Lair v. Motl (f/k/a Lair v. Murry), No. 12-cv-0012 (D. Mont.), on appeal Nos. 12-35484, 12-35538, 12-

35809 (lead case), 12-35889 (9th Cir.)

Case Description: On September 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary

injunction, challenging multiple provisions of Montana’s campaign finance law, including:

1. Requirements for political election materials that mention another candidate’s voting record

(“vote reporting requirement”);

2. A prohibition on misrepresenting a candidate’s public voting record or any other matter relevant

to the issues of the campaign (“political civil libel”);

3. Limits on contributions from individuals and political committees to candidates;

4. The limit on contributions from state political parties to candidates; and

5. The prohibition on corporate contributions to a candidate or corporate independent expenditures

on behalf of a candidate.

On February 24, 2012, the district court preliminarily enjoined the provisions regulating the

discussion of candidates’ voting records in campaign materials, i.e., the voting reporting requirement

and the political civil libel provision. The court, however, denied preliminary relief as to all other

claims, although it noted that (a) the challenge to the corporate expenditure prohibition was moot

because the prohibition had been enjoined in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, and (b) the

plaintiffs could potentially marshal evidence showing that the contribution limits prevented

candidates from “amassing the resources necessary for effective [campaign] advocacy” as proscribed

by Randall v. Sorrell.

On May 16, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in part for plaintiffs, striking down

the provisions regulating the discussion of candidates’ voting records in campaign materials, i.e., the

voting reporting requirement and the political civil libel provision, as well as the restriction on

corporate contributions to independent expenditure committees.

On June 20, 2012, the state moved for summary judgment on the Randall–style challenge to the

contribution limits. The district court denied the motion on June 29, 2012. After a bench trial on this

issue, the court struck down Montana’s contribution limits on grounds that they were too low and

prevented candidates from “amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.”

Case Status: On October 16, 2012, the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s decision invalidating

Montana’s contribution limits pending the state’s appeal. The Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’

application to vacate the stay on October 23, 2012 (No. 12A-395). The Ninth Circuit stayed appellate

proceedings pending the resolution of McCutcheon v. FEC. After the Supreme Court decided

11

McCutcheon, the Ninth Circuit ruled on May 26, 2015 to reverse the district court, holding that the

lower court had applied the wrong standard of review to the contribution limits.

CLC Position/Involvement: On July 2, 2014, the CLC, joined by Common Cause, Justice at Stake

and the League of Women Voters, filed an amici brief urging the Ninth Circuit to overturn the district

court ruling striking down Montana’s political campaign contribution limits.

Lake Travis Citizens Council v. Ashley, 1:14-cv-00994 (W.D. Tex.)

Case Description: Plaintiffs challenge the following provisions of Texas law: (1) the statutory

definitions of “campaign expenditure” and “political committee”; and (2) the Texas Ethics

Commission rule that provides that a group will meet the “principal purpose” test for political

committee status if “the group expends more than 25 percent of its annual expenses and other

resources to make political expenditures within a calendar year.”

Case Status: The complaint was filed on October 31, 2014, and the answer was filed on December

12, 2014.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC has been tracking this case.

Ognibene v. Parkes, 08-cv-1335 (S.D.N.Y.), on appeal No. 09-0994 (2d Cir.)

Case Description: In February 2008, a collection of candidates, lobbyists, LLCs and party entities

filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of multiple provisions of New York City’s municipal

campaign finance law and public financing program, including:

(1) New York’s pay-to-play law that requires persons doing business with the city and lobbyists

to comply with lower contribution limits and provides that their contributions are not “matched”

with public funds;

(2) A 2007 expansion of New York’s ban on corporate contributions to also prohibit contributions

from partnerships, LLCs and LLPs; and

(3) The trigger provisions of the public financing program that provide publicly-financed

candidates with a greater “match” of public funds and an increase in their voluntary spending

limits if they face a high-spending, non-participating opponent.

Plaintiffs brought their claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Section 2 of the

Voting Rights Act (VRA).

On April 24, 2008, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on their First and Fourteenth

Amendment claims against the pay-to-play provisions and the expanded corporate contribution

prohibition (but did not address the trigger provisions or VRA claims). On February 6, 2009, the

district court denied plaintiffs’ motion, and granted summary judgment in favor of the City.

Plaintiffs appealed the decision. On December 21, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

affirmed the district court’s decision. Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari (No. 11-1153), which

was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2012.

Case Status: In 2012, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the district court on

their remaining claims pertaining to the trigger provisions of the public financing program. At issue

were (1) provisions that raise/eliminate the expenditure limits for participating candidates facing

high-spending non-participating opponents, and (2) the “sure winner” provision that provides

participants with additional matching funds when an opponent’s spending and contributions cross

12

20% of the applicable expenditure limit and/or meet other trigger criteria. (Plaintiffs and the City

stipulated that a provision that provides participating candidates with additional matching funds when

their non-participating opponents spend above a certain amount was unconstitutional.) On April 4,

2013, the district court granted summary judgment in part to plaintiffs, in part to defendants, and

struck down the 20% trigger in the “sure winner” provision, but upheld all other challenged

provisions.

On August 13, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation wherein the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss

the remaining claims in the amended complaint. However, on October 10, 2014, plaintiffs asked the

court to reconsider its 2009 decision upholding NYC’s contribution restrictions in light of the

Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. The motion was fully briefed as of the end of

November 2014.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC is tracking this case.

O’Keefe v. Chisholm, No. 2:14-cv-139 (E.D. Wisc.), on appeal No. 14-1822 (7th Cir.), petition for

certiorari filed, No. 14-872 (U.S.)

Case Description: Plaintiffs filed suit seeking to end a nearly two-year investigation into alleged

illegal coordination between Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and outside groups during the 2012

attempt to recall Walker. On May 6, 2014, district court Judge Rudolph Randa preliminarily enjoined

the investigation based on the theory that the First Amendment forbids regulation of any coordinated

spending beyond express advocacy or its functional equivalent. The court additionally ordered

prosecutors to destroy evidence gathered in the case tying the Governor and his campaign to outside

groups.

Case Status: Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction order to the Seventh Circuit Court of

Appeals. On September 24, 2014, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the

case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the suit, leaving further proceedings to the

Wisconsin state courts. Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was

denied on May 18, 2015.

CLC Position/Involvement: On August 8, 2014, the CLC, joined by Democracy 21, filed brief

urging the Seventh Circuit to reverse the district court.

Protectmarriage.com v. Bowen, No. 2:09-cv-00058 (E.D. Calif.), on appeal No. 11-17884 (9th Cir.),

petition for certiorari filed, No. 14-434 (U.S.)

Case Description: In January 2009, plaintiffs brought a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of California to a California law requiring ballot measure committees to disclose their

contributors of $100 or more. Plaintiff was a committee supporting Proposition 8, a ballot measure

pertaining to same-sex marriage. Specifically, plaintiffs sought an as-applied “blanket exemption”

from the law, claiming that compelled disclosure of their contributors would subject them to threats,

harassment, and reprisals. Additionally, plaintiffs contended that the law’s $100 threshold for the

disclosure of contributors was not narrowly tailored. The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a

preliminary injunction on January 30, 2009, and granted summary judgment in favor of the state on

October 20, 2011.

Case Status: Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 2,

2011. On May 20, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ facial

13

challenge to California’s disclosure law, and dismissed the appeal as moot with regard to plaintiffs’

as-applied challenges. The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing on July 16, 2014.

On March 2, 2015, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed an amicus brief to support California’s disclosure law

with the Ninth Circuit on April 17, 2012.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Gessler, No. 1:14-cv-02850 (D. Colo.)

Case Description: In June 2014, plaintiffs Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) and Colorado

Campaign for Life (CCL) sent mailers to Colorado voters without making required disclosures, and

consequently became the subject of a state enforcement action. On October 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed

a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado challenging Colorado’s

electioneering communication disclosure requirements as facially overbroad, and challenging the

associated $1,000 reporting threshold and the state’s private enforcement scheme for campaign

finance violations. The case also includes claims brought under Colorado’s state constitution.

Case Status: On November 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On

December 16, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion, finding that abstention was appropriate under

Younger v. Harris pending the resolution of parallel state administrative proceedings.

On December 23, 2014, in the state enforcement proceedings, RMGO and CCL were ordered to file

electioneering communications reports and pay fines of $8450 each. The groups did not appeal this

ruling.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed an amici brief in this case to defend the Colorado

disclosure law on November 25, 2014.

Texas Democratic Party v. King Street Patriots, No. D-1-GN-11-002363 (D. Ct. Travis Co.), on appeal

No. 03-12-00255-CV (Tex. App.—Austin)

Case Description: The Texas Democratic Party filed an action seeking damages and injunctive relief

in connection to several violations of state campaign finance law allegedly committed by the King

Street Patriots (KSP). The Party alleges that KSP, a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation, made in-kind

contributions to the state Republican Party in violation of Texas’s restriction on corporate political

contributions, and failed to register as a “political committee” and comply with state disclosure law.

In response to the suit, KSP filed a counterclaim challenging the constitutionality of numerous

provisions of Texas campaign finance law, including the state corporate contribution restriction, and

the disclosure and organizational requirements applicable to political committees.

On March 27, 2012, the state district court rejected KSP’s counterclaim, and upheld the challenged

provisions of Texas campaign finance law.

Case Status: KSP appealed the decision to the state Court of Appeals (Third District). On October 8,

2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision upholding Texas campaign finance law.

On April 27, 2015, KSP filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court of Texas.

CLC Position/Involvement: On August 3, 2012, the CLC filed an amicus brief in the Texas Court of

Appeals to defend the constitutionality of Texas’s campaign finance laws. The CLC previously filed

an amicus brief on September 21, 2011 with the state district court.

14

Three Unnamed Petitioners, et al. v. Peterson, et al., Nos. 2013AP002504-508-W, 2014AP296-OA,

2014AP417-421-W (Wis. S. Ct.)

Case Description: These consolidated cases center around multiple challenges to the so-called “John

Doe” investigation of alleged illegal coordination between the campaign of Wisconsin Governor

Scott Walker and outside groups in the 2012 recall election. On January 10, 2014, the state judge

presiding over the investigation quashed the state’s subpoenas on constitutional grounds. The

investigation has been halted pending resolution of the various petitions before the state Supreme

Court.

Case Status: On March 5, 2015, the state respondents filed their merits briefs with the Wisconsin

Supreme Court. On March 27, the Court cancelled the scheduled oral argument, citing concerns

regarding the sealed nature of the filings in the case.

CLC Position/Involvement: On March 17, 2015, the CLC, along with Democracy 21 and Public

Citizen, filed an amici brief to urge the Wisconsin Supreme Court to affirm the constitutionality of

Wisconsin’s coordination law and regulations.

Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Sorrell, 09-cv-00188 (D. Vt.), on appeal No. 12-2904 (2d

Cir.), cert. petition No. 14-380 (U.S.)

Case Description: In August 2009, Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) filed a complaint

challenging several aspects of Vermont’s campaign finance law, arguing that the law violates the First

Amendment by regulating VRLC as a political committee, requiring disclaimers on electioneering

communications and requiring the reporting of “mass-media activities.” Plaintiffs filed an amended

complaint on July 19, 2010 to also challenge the state contribution limits as applied to its political

committee making only independent expenditures, as well as the $100 reporting threshold for

contributions to a committee.

On June 21, 2012, the district court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment, upholding both

the challenged disclosure law and, notably, the $2,000 contribution limit as applied to VRTL’s

independent expenditure committee (IEC). In support of this holding, the Court highlighted the

specific facts of the case, including that VRLC’s IEC was intertwined with its conventional PAC with

a “fluidity of funds” and overlapping governance between the committees.

Case Status: Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18, 2012. On July 2,

2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court. In particular, it upheld the contribution limit as

applied to VRLC’s IEC, determining that the “independent” committee was “functionally

indistinguishable” from VRLC given “the overlap of staff and resources, the lack of financial

independence, the coordination of activities, and the flow of information between the entities.”

The Supreme Court denied VRL’s petition for certiorari on January 12, 2015.

CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed an amicus brief with the Second Circuit to defend

Vermont’s laws on December 6, 2012.

Wolfson v. Concannon, No. 3:08-cv-08064 (D. Ariz.), on appeal No. 11-17634 (9th Cir.)

Case Description: This case involves a First Amendment challenge to multiple canons in the Arizona

Code of Judicial Conduct, including canons that prohibit judicial candidates from making speeches on

15

behalf of political organizations or candidates for public office; publicly endorsing or opposing

political candidates; soliciting funds on behalf of, or contributing funds to, any candidate or political

organization in excess of the amounts permitted by law; actively participating in any political

campaign other than his/her own; and personally soliciting campaign contributions other than through

a campaign committee.

Case Status: The district court upheld the canons, granting summary judgment in favor of the state.

On May 9, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the canon

prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting political contributions, as well as the canon

prohibiting judicial candidates from endorsing, supporting or campaigning for non-judicial

candidates—but only as these restrictions applied to non-judge candidates. On September 26, 2014,

the Ninth Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc, but the en banc proceedings were stayed

pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar.

CLC Position/Involvement: On June 16, 2014, the CLC joined the Brennan Center for Justice, the

Arizona Judges’ Association, the American Judicature Society and Justice at Stake in filing an amici

brief urging the Ninth Circuit to review the case en banc.

Yamada v. Kuramoto, 10-cv-00497 (D. Haw.), on appeal sub nom. Yamada v. Weaver, No. 12-15913

(9th Cir.)

Case Description: On August 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed suit to challenge multiple aspects of Hawaii

state campaign finance law, including:

1. The statutory definitions of “political committee” and “expenditure”;

2. The electioneering communications reporting requirements;

3. The disclaimer requirements connected to “advertisements,” as defined by state law;

4. The state restriction on contributions from government contractors; and

5. The contribution limits applicable to independent expenditure committees.

On October 7, 2010, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction only with

respect to its challenge to the contribution limits as applied to independent expenditure committees.

On October 29, 2010, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the

remaining claims. On March 21, 2011, the district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on

their claim regarding independent expenditure committee contribution limits, and granted summary

judgment to the state on all other claims.

Case Status: On April 19, 2012, plaintiffs appealed the district court’s March 2011 decision to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court,

rejecting all of plaintiffs’ remaining legal claims.

CLC Position/Involvement: On September 19, 2012, the CLC filed an amicus brief with the Ninth

Circuit to defend Hawaii’s disclosure laws and its restriction on contributions from government

contractors.